1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5729/mark-cuban-on-gootube/

Mark Cuban on GooTube

October 9, 2006 by

He thinks Google is crazy and that it will be very interesting to see what happens next in the copyright world:

“I still think Google lawyers will be a busy, busy bunch. I don’t think you can sue Google into oblivion, but as others have mentioned, if Google gets nailed one single time for copyright violation, there are going to be more shareholder lawsuits than Doans has pills to go with the pile-on copyright suits that follow…

“I think there will be supoenas to get the names of YouTube and Google Video users. Lots of them, as those copyright owners not part of the gravy train go after both Google and their users for infringement…

“It will be interesting to see just how Google reconciles selling videos like “Crazy in Love” from Sony when the same video is available as a user upload for free from YouTube…

“And what if I’m completely, absolutely wrong and no one sues anyone? That everyone just loves the fact that their content is available to tens of millions of viewers and advertisers and YouTube and Google definitely qualify to be protected behind the Safe Harbors of the DMCA?..

“Well, I’m ready for that too. I went ahead and registered effingreat.com because that’s how much fun it’s going to be using Filesanywhere.com features to support a ‘load everything you own and share it with world’ Web site…

“Only I will expand the storage beyond 100 mb and will open it up to books, term papers, pictures, movies, music, articles, anything and everything that can be digitized. I will add the appropriate disclaimers and provide a cool social networking interface. Maybe something like Goowy.Com or maybe something like Flixster.com. I mean, why not? What could be cooler user generated content than the term paper you wrote on Daniel Boone? Or what could be more interesting than scanning in a book you wanted to give to someone and just posting it? And dang, just wholesale upload all of your MP3s.”

Does Mark Cuban need a lesson in intellectual property rights? He has a point in this legal environment, but shouldn’t he just trust his sarcasm and fight the good fight?

{ 5 comments }

Franklin Harris October 9, 2006 at 10:47 pm

I don’t really see how Cuban is wrong. He is talking about current legal realities, the same ones that left Napster sued into a shell of its former self and are currently threatening to do the same to P2P software makers. He’s probably right that it’s only a matter of time before Google/YouTube get sued, unless, of course, Google reaches agreements with all of the major studios, and even then Google won’t be protected if the studios decide Google isn’t doing a “good enough” job of yanking down “infringing” content. YouTube already routinely pulls down files when the studios complain. (I’ve followed many links only to find that instead of the file I was looking for, there was a disclaimer saying Warner Bros. or the BBC or someone had ordered the file removed.)

David C October 10, 2006 at 12:08 am

If someone really believes that copyrights are a form of property, then they must also believe that copying something is a form of theft. So this raises the question – who is the thief? The person who uploaded the copyrighted file, or YouTube the hoster, or the person who downloaded the copyrighted file, or perhaps all three?

Of course, how is YouTube supposed to know that the uploader didn’t own that copyright or have permission to upload that copyright and how is the downloader to know that YouTube doesn’t have some general agreement permitting the download of copyrighted works. In fact, there is no real way for anyone to know something is copyrighted unless that information is tagged.

But because information is so malleable, it would need to be digitally signed or encrypted to prevent tampering. But because information into the eyes and ears can not be encrypted, there is always the possibility that it can be intercepted and recoded. So therefore, it is impossible for someone to know the state of a copyrighted work unless all information is monitored and approved by a central authority.

In sum, copyright properties always logically require central control and approval of all media.

Rich Gibson October 10, 2006 at 12:12 am

I thought that napster got sued into oblivion because the evidence showed that they intended the service to be used largely for copyright infringement.

The evidentiary record was filled with early napster materials of fanning, et al, making jokes about screwing the studios and ‘stealing’ music.

I would argue that You Tube has substantially more clearly non-infringing uses than did napster.

I mean, sure, you could share your own band song on Napster, but it wasn’t really set up for that. It was set up to let people find copyrighted music.

(note: I am much closer to an information anarchist than an RIAA shill, I’m just looking at the arguments that were made at the time, not my personal views).

Youtube is all about the social networking and user generated content.

I think that even most of the ‘obvious’ infringing content is fair use. Obviously not someone uploading a whole current release movie, but I think that taking a 5 minute piece of the Daily Show is, or at least should be :-) fair use.

If You Tube gets sued into oblivion (or Google is forced to dump them) I will personally suffer harm. My personal content will then be unavailable.

And you know what? I will consider lawsuits against youtube to be acts of copyright terrorism.

Ken October 10, 2006 at 2:26 am

Youtube will delete any content that infringes on copyright if you report it to them.
I dont see any difference in risk between youtube, google video and myspace video.

I’m also interested in why Google opted to buy shares of youtube instead of just a take over, do they want to dump it when things get tough ? and why wont it be merged with google video which already has a profit model ?

banker October 10, 2006 at 4:13 am

Google did buy Youtube (all of it). Instead of a cash offer, Google offered the equivalent of $1.65b in Google stock to the owners of Youtube.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: